Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 83 posts

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#21

Post by rspeer »

sandworm101 wrote: post #15

I don't think liberal zoning is the problem. I've seen my city go through massive changes in the last 30 years, top of the list being a radical increase, a liberalization, of zoning. They are allowing more and bigger developments. Multi-story and multi-unit developments are everywhere, but that isn't making housing any more affordable. A piece of land with a liberal zoning is worth more. It is a target for redevelopm…

> Apartments and other attached units are now so expensive, and prices rising so steadily, that the logical thing to do is let them sit empty.

I highly doubt this is going on over any long period of time. If there's a bubble like this, it'll pop.

Why do you think these new apartments are luxury apartments? It's because living in your city is a luxury that people with enough money are paying for. If they didn't exist, people would be paying even more for living spaces that do exist. So, build new apartments and prices go up. But don't build new apartments, and prices go up more.

The most reliable way to get affordable housing (besides a lottery or waiting list, which doesn't solve the problem) is to have built new housing 30 years ago.

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#23

Post by sandworm101 »

rspeer wrote: post #21
sandworm101 wrote: post #15

I don't think liberal zoning is the problem. I've seen my city go through massive changes in the last 30 years, top of the list being a radical increase, a liberalization, of zoning. They are allowing more and bigger developments. Multi-story and multi-unit developments are everywhere, but that isn't making housing any more affordable. A piece of land with a liberal zoning is worth more. It is a target for redevelopm…

> Apartments and other attached units are now so expensive, and prices rising so steadily, that the logical thing to do is let them sit empty. I highly doubt this is going on over any long period of time. If there's a bubble like this, it'll pop. Why do you think these new apartments are luxury apartments? It's because living in your city is a luxury that people with enough money are paying for. If they didn't exist,…

Luxury has some scientific definitions. Top of the list is size for a single-family dwelling. My city has liberalized zoning for size, but kept limits on number of occupants and such for fear of impacting infrastructure. The result is ever-larger units. New houses seem less like houses and more like diagrams of local building codes. Property line minus ten feet, there's your wall.

Luxury apartments can also be defined during zoning as units that the city assumes will rarely be occupied. It is often easier to get a permit if you can claim that the people in your development aren't going to contribute to traffic problems. I've even seen the pre-selling to overseas investors trotted out as justification for not upgrading traffic connections to a development. So-called "elder living" units also fit this scheme.

As for rents, the standard has always been that yearly rent should be around 1/20th of the unit's value, the "20-year" rule. But with property prices rising so quickly, some units are renting out at 1/50th their value. Once you get into those areas, rent becomes irrelevant and you run into the paradox that many units (houses and condos) are worth significantly more without tenants. You don;t want to bother asking tenants to clear out so you can show the unit. So investors planning to flip something in the next couple years don't bother with rent. Only when they think that they may have to hold on for a while do they consider.

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#24

Post by toomuchtodo »

fenomas wrote: post #13
toomuchtodo wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the issue is, everyone believes they should be able to become a stakeholder in a resource that is, by definition, naturally constrained. Only so many people get a say in a geographic area, and the stark reality is that once you reach a certain critical mass, you're incentivized to protect your quality of life over allowing for more people to join you. Strangely, its thought of as acceptable for tech workers (…

Interesting point, but surely the bar for where "critical mass" occurs depends entirely on social factors. That is, the neighborhood where I live (outside Tokyo) can absorb a lot more stakeholders than neighborhoods in Boulder, just because people are accustomed to different lifestyles (more apartments, fewer lawns, etc).

Agree.

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#25

Post by rspeer »

sandworm101 wrote: post #23
rspeer wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apartments and other attached units are now so expensive, and prices rising so steadily, that the logical thing to do is let them sit empty. I highly doubt this is going on over any long period of time. If there's a bubble like this, it'll pop. Why do you think these new apartments are luxury apartments? It's because living in your city is a luxury that people with enough money are paying for. If they didn't exist,…

Luxury has some scientific definitions. Top of the list is size for a single-family dwelling. My city has liberalized zoning for size, but kept limits on number of occupants and such for fear of impacting infrastructure. The result is ever-larger units. New houses seem less like houses and more like diagrams of local building codes. Property line minus ten feet, there's your wall. Luxury apartments can also be define…

If the problem is that overseas investors are buying the houses, sure, that's a problem that decreases the amount of living space. But how would restrictive zoning fix that problem?

And I still don't think the flipping is relevant in the long run. It's pent-up demand sorting itself out. They can't keep flipping forever.

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#26

Post by HillaryBriss »

> The lost opportunities for development may theoretically reduce the output of the United States economy by as much as $1.5 trillion a year

We should also do away with National Parks and Forests, which are nothing more than zoning laws at the Federal level.

For that matter, state and local parks get in the way too.

How much lost economic output are restrictions on real estate development in Golden Gate Park costing the city of San Francisco?

How many more people could be housed there if the city simply got out of the way and let the developers build twenty or thirty thousand new units in there?

Why does Federal law even allow a local community like San Francisco so much control over its land?

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#27

Post by stale2002 »

HillaryBriss wrote: post #26

> The lost opportunities for development may theoretically reduce the output of the United States economy by as much as $1.5 trillion a year We should also do away with National Parks and Forests, which are nothing more than zoning laws at the Federal level. For that matter, state and local parks get in the way too. How much lost economic output are restrictions on real estate development in Golden Gate Park costing…

You are thinking about things in exactly the wrong way.

For every 1 story increase in building height in a San Francisco apartment complex, there is 10 less houses that have to be build in Suburbia.

10 parcels of land that can now be converted to national parks, and public spaces.

People need a place to live whether you like it or not.

We can either make room for them in the cities, by increasing density and building height limits, or we can stand by and watch as urban sprawl continues to destroy our environment.

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#28

Post by AckSyn »

HillaryBriss wrote: post #26

> The lost opportunities for development may theoretically reduce the output of the United States economy by as much as $1.5 trillion a year We should also do away with National Parks and Forests, which are nothing more than zoning laws at the Federal level. For that matter, state and local parks get in the way too. How much lost economic output are restrictions on real estate development in Golden Gate Park costing…

Developers have a nasty habit of gutting nature and tearing apart the land for a quick cheap buck. And after working for several doing their I.T. work and thus being on the "inside" of their decision making practices, I can tell you they're disgusting parasites. They're the LAST people you want tearing up your countryside to put in cheaply built apartments or even suburban homes.

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#29

Post by ams6110 »

stale2002 wrote: post #27
HillaryBriss wrote: post #26

> The lost opportunities for development may theoretically reduce the output of the United States economy by as much as $1.5 trillion a year We should also do away with National Parks and Forests, which are nothing more than zoning laws at the Federal level. For that matter, state and local parks get in the way too. How much lost economic output are restrictions on real estate development in Golden Gate Park costing…

You are thinking about things in exactly the wrong way. For every 1 story increase in building height in a San Francisco apartment complex, there is 10 less houses that have to be build in Suburbia. 10 parcels of land that can now be converted to national parks, and public spaces. People need a place to live whether you like it or not. We can either make room for them in the cities, by increasing density and building…

Assuming that suburban houses and apartments in urban multistory complexes are fungible (which they are not).

Re: How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality

#30

Post by mtviewdave »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #6

They should just repeal zoning laws entirely. Maybe make an exception for polluting heavy industry, or for people using government money or government-backed loans. It should probably even be a constitutional amendment. People who want quiet suburbs can pool together a corporation to own a planned community. That limits the scope of their NIMBYism to just their community, and as shareholders they could vote on whethe…

The "corporation" you've described is a government. Literally.

A government (in the United States) is just a mechanism for an area's resident citizenry to express their collective will. Whether you call it "government" with "citizens", or a "corporation" with "shareholders", it's the same thing.

Post reply on HN